User talk:Gkm460/sandbox

Article Review
The article has a great lead section that successfully highlights the important points of the article's subject and gives a good overall of the rest of the article. To further improve the simplify the subject of the article, for those readers with little background in this kind of topic, I suggest the hyperlinks to complex words or organisations should be added, which allows readers to gain a better understanding more promptly and increase traffic to the article.

The article has clear sections.However there seems to be a lot of overlap of information, that is repetition of the same information under different sections, and this can be improved by integrating the smaller different sections to yield a concise and organised informative article. Also, there is some inconsistency in during the reuse of the words IAEA and NFCIS, such that once the words have been abbreviated to an acronym then this could be used throughout, to allow a smooth flow of the article.There's also a mistake in the last heading, i.e. it should be 'references' instead of 'peer review'.

The article is successful in presenting the minority positions of the subject. And to further improve the coverage of the article's subject, much of the information should be covered from other sources, instead of just one primary source, currently the iaea website. This can be done by looking for other reliable sources such as books and peer-reviewed journals. For example, one source I found that can increase the authenticity of the article is the book called, 'Nuclear Decommissioning: Planning, Execution and International Experience' which talks about the NFCIS, such sources are secondary sources and are encouraged compared to primary sources.

Overall, the article has a clear reflection of various aspects of the topic, and essentially presents neutral content, i.e. doesn't try to persuade the reader to accept an idea or viewpoint. And can further be improved once the modifications to some aspects highlighted above are made.Davyani123 (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Response
Moving forward, I believe the following suggestions from the peer review should be implemented in our final project:

- repetition: initially, we prepared the article individually in our respective sandboxes. After receiving further clarification in class, we combined the two to meet the draft deadline, accordingly, there are overlapping sections/material. This can be remedied in our final project by combining the strongest aspects into a single section.

- hyperlinks: the absence/inconsistency of hyperlinks arose from the preparation of two separate articles. Moving forward, this is an easy fix that will be featured in our final article to aid readers/increase web traffic

- Acronyms: in our final project, acronyms will be clear and consistent to avoid confusion and improve article flow.

- references/peer review. This is a simple copyerror that arose from me not understanding where to prepare our peer review for another student. ( I assumed this was something I did in my own sandbox).

- ** SOURCING ** as a group, we agreed that finding and using secondary sourcing was a key concern. In the preparation of our article we had difficulty finding viable secondary sources. From my own perspective, many of the sources I examined through the MUN Library website were pointed and focused on specific countries' nuclear programs. General information about the NFCIS or the IAEA was difficult to find.

Tw3280 (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)